The Court agreed that she cannot have a fair and effective trial where she was - this was the finding made by SIAC and the govt had not challenged it. Some eminently quotable nuggets from Flaux LJ (with whom Singh LJ and King LJ agreed)
The "free will" argument is premature, and irrelevant to whether she can have a fair hearing, §94.
However, it doesn't follow that the appeal against deprivation of citizenship must automatically be allowed without consideration of the merits - that would set a "dangerous precedent" - §95
So if she can't participate effectively, but that doesn't mean her appeal must simply succeed without more, what happens next? Here were the three options: carry on anyway, ask for a stay, strike out and apply to reinstate at a later date.
The Court was, it's fair to say, distinctly underwhelmed by options (i) and (iii). Either option would compound the unfairness. (§113 - 114)
Option (ii) was considered, but rejected on the basis that it would be an indefinite stay with the potential threat of execution or mistreatment abroad a 'foreseeable risk.'
The Court points out that she can be held in custody or made subject to a TPIM, and on the face of it appears to be far less dangerous than a male comparator "U2" who was
Conclusions:
She will be able to enter the UK (and may be held in custody) in order to have her appeal against deprivation of citizenship re-heard by SIAC.
You can follow @legalfeminist.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: